We like to get into the maker spirit at Ars, whether it's e-mail servers, laptop hammocks, or hacked toys. And when DIY projects evolve into stories, it's because the project centers on the interests of whichever writer is at the helm.

After coming on as a full-time Arsian a few months ago, I didn’t even get a chance to request or pitch a project of my own before my maker adventure was assigned. The rest of the staff saw my profile’s tidbit about board game addiction, and they insisted I formalize my fandom: I had to design, test, and produce an Ars Technica board game themed around the site.

This is tough for a few reasons.

I lost a lot of my childhood to board games, and not in terms of sheer hours. Rather, the spirit of my childhood—innocence, wonder, whimsy—was sapped by frequent, tainted games of Monopoly. In some ways, you can blame my older brother and his abuse of power as the game’s “banker,” which meant he seemed to always eke out victories by way of miraculous, mid-game acquisitions. (I’m sure he found a way to cheat at Connect Four, as well.)

But Monopoly has issues beyond crooked bankers. It’s a dice-driven slog in which players have little strategy at their disposal other than buy-or-don’t-buy, and the only meaningful interaction players have with each other is demanding rent payments. It’s not designed to maximize either fun or smarts, yet its decades of success made it an archetype for so many other luck-based board games (and their cheeky mascots). Our family closet was full of similar clunkers, not to mention a broken copy of Mouse Trap.

That’s because modern board games are better balanced and rely more on natural checks and balances—particularly when they require players to barter and negotiate in order to win. The current era’s biggest hits have often come from Germany, as well, which is probably why they include so many farms and trains. (Weirdly, there are no megahit, David Hasselhoff-themed adventures yet.)

So the board-shaped chip on my shoulder has mostly dissolved, but the flood of great, newer games creates an entirely different problem for a creating a new game: intimidation. How can any amateur compete with decades of largely-German iteration on the hobby?

There’s also the issue of stepping up and creating a game concept of my own after spending, er, 18 years posing as a games critic. That’s a level of put-up-or-shut-up I haven’t faced since starting a band while working as a music writer in a long-ago era. Spoiler alert: The band wasn’t great. But the brief experience of faking like a drummer served as a good reminder that sometimes, a person in my position can use an ample portion of humble pie.

In that light, I throw myself on the mercy of the board gaming industry with Ars Boardnica, a multi-part series detailing the development of Ars’ own board game. We’ll describe the creative, nitty-gritty beginnings, recount our playtests, offer a print-and-play version at the mid-way point, and work out exactly how to produce playable versions of our labors. Heck, if the game turns out well and there's reader interest, we'll see about making it possible for everyone to buy one (though no promises).

Before we can do any of that, of course, we have to narrow down our creative vision. We humbly request your direct help in the process.

The proposal

I have casually spoken to a few game design pals about this idea over the years, most notably Andy Schatz, the IGF award winner behind the video game Monaco. Before focusing on that game’s creation, which delivers a cartoony, four-player heist adventure, Schatz had designs on making a board game based on his lesser-known Venture Africa series.

In early 2013, we played a prototype version of the board game at his San Diego home, which he likened to “battle chess,” though not in the way you might remember from ‘80s computers. Rather, the two-player board game put players in control of animal armies, and each piece had to keep neighboring animals and terrain in mind as they attempted moves and captures. Crocodiles move faster through rivers, zebras want to end turns next to certain creatures, and so on.

The game was mechanically interesting, but… it wasn’t so fun. Every time Schatz sent the prototype to board game producers and designers, he got that condemnation as feedback along with a request for “more luck.” The best games find the right balance between strategy, control, chance, and surprise, he realized. At the end of the day, games should force even the best players to be agile and creative.

While that combination is way, way easier said than done, it still serves as a good guiding principle. We’re not making strategy-obsessed chess, nor are we making a random-card-guided kind of Candy Land. How exactly do we split the diff?

If we’re ever going to finish this homebrew project in a reasonable amount of time, we’ll be best off hewing closely to an established genre's mechanics. Once we decide on an archetype, we will iterate and create something unique; we’re not going to make a version of Carcassonne where all of the “meeples” simply look like Peter Bright for example.

This is where you, dear reader, come in. Three reasonable game concepts, for three to six players each, are listed below, and we’d love your feedback on which is your favorite. On top of that, tweaks and suggestions for those archetypes are welcome. We’ll cull your feedback and use it in crafting the next Ars Boardnica post—one where we get started on making Ars’ first board game.

(If you have a hankering to tell us “hey, my idea is better,” please at least contribute a pick for your favorite of the three first. Because if that is undeniably the case, you should seriously go design it yourself, which we think would be awesome!)

The possibilities

ONE: A Catan-like “Euro” game. The object will be to accumulate a set number of “victory points” before anyone else does, and players will do so by accumulating resources, completing objectives, and sharing or trading items with other players. Other examples in this vein include Agricola and the D&D-themed Lords of Waterdeep.

TWO: A Pandemic-like. The game will pit everyone against “the board,” meaning players will have to cooperate to accomplish certain tasks before either time runs out or a certain penalty condition ends the game. (Ideally, our version will allow one of the players to become a traitor and ally with the board at the game’s midway point, because, hey, that’d be fun.) Other games in this style include Forbidden Island and Hanabi.

THREE: An adventure game a la Munchkin. Players will pick a few special, unique powers and enter a multi-room dungeon, where every room becomes more difficult than the last—and the resulting loot after each battle gets better in kind. However, players will also secretly play cards and fulfill personal, private objectives that will help them claim the big treasure at the end of the dungeon. So while they must team up to survive, they must also disrupt each other’s personal quests to claim total, end-game victory. (If we go this route, by the way, I propose a Super Mario RPG-style mechanic in battles, where dice rolls simulate the “perfect timing” of attacks.)

If you must know, I’m initially leaning towards the third archetype. But I can be swayed!

Once we discuss possible directions to take, the next post will sum up the basic game plan, ideas for an aesthetic (an angry Ars Technica staff meeting? A modern take on American wiretapping in which players control real political figures?), and a more formalized roadmap of the project to come.

In the meantime, it's time for your input, Boardnicans. Take to the comments section, vote for an archetype, offer gameplay ideas, suggest game titles, and otherwise go nuts.

Latest Ars Video >

War Stories | Thief: The Dark Project

1998's Thief: The Dark Project was a pioneer for the stealth genre, utilizing light and shadow as essential gameplay mechanics. The very thing that Thief became so well-known for was also the game's biggest development hurdle. Looking Glass Studios founder Paul Neurath recounts the difficulties creating Thief: The Dark Project, and how its AI systems had to be completely rewritten years into development.

War Stories | Thief: The Dark Project

War Stories | Thief: The Dark Project

1998's Thief: The Dark Project was a pioneer for the stealth genre, utilizing light and shadow as essential gameplay mechanics. The very thing that Thief became so well-known for was also the game's biggest development hurdle. Looking Glass Studios founder Paul Neurath recounts the difficulties creating Thief: The Dark Project, and how its AI systems had to be completely rewritten years into development.

151 Reader Comments

How about an Arkham Horror style players-versus-the-game-board style play where players represent hackers out to stop conglomerates from calcifying the internet into pay-through-the-nose private industry?

I have a hard time getting past the "setting" question. I'm not sure what kind of theme you could be aiming for with an ArsTechnica board game. In regards to the second archetype, if you haven't already, I recommend also checking out Shadows Over Camelot. It's a great game that pits players against the game with a possible traitor (it's also possible that there is no traitor, but the players don't know that and become very paranoid). What's fun about that style of game, to me, is the psychology of it. When there's the unknown possibility that one of the players is working against the others, players begin to interpret the actions of others in potentially incorrect ways. It breeds a degree of paranoia and is very much a "head game." There's plenty of random element in it too.

Conceivably, you could combine #2 and #3 such that it is a "dungeon-style" adventure, with one or more characters actively trying to subvert the efforts of the others. For example, if there is a primary antagonist representing the "game", then one of the players may be a secret agent working for the game or being "mind-controlled" by the game. Indeed, perhaps you could reverse it such that one or more players are initially overtly working against the rest of the players, but can be liberated from the game's control and work with the players from that point onward. You would need to maintain a strong incentive for the players to work on the game's side at first, though, which I think could be achieved by maintaining a points system for actions ("deeds" for example).

As for possible themes, perhaps you could select current major events that have been reported on, for example: patent trolls, climate change, ISPs, peer review, phone wars, etc. Maybe you could even make it focus on "championing" different perspectives on such controversial issues (requiring players to defend and work toward a randomly assigned side). It could leverage the "structured controversy" style of educational debate to provide a further merit to the game rather than just "being fun." (fun and educational?)

For option 2, if players are going against the "board" and one of them has the option to join the board against the other players, isn't that a natural metaphor for the front page comment threads or OpenForum "boards" and the internally-promoted Moderators? Or maybe the Ars writing staff? The players are commenters and one of them can secretly become an author. Maybe the "board's" goal is to keep discussions on-topic. Think of all the inside jokes you could work in! Invisible cats, jacks under the wrong part of the car, 10K posts, bonus "WW" points for a succinct summary, "containment breaches," etc. Or perhaps reverse the sides: have the players try to keep things running smoothly but the board and maybe the "traitor" presenting all the off-topic hazards and trolling.

I'm certain this approach I've outlined above is both simple to implement and has mass appeal and wouldn't just be a self-indulgent circle jerk for a few insiders with references that don't make any sense in five years. *nods*

How about a Euro style except there are stations to capture using either your main piece or secondary "pawns". These stations would serve as the ultimate goal and the first player to control, say, 2/3 of the total will win.

For the sake of a theme, you could have each station as a time server, each player works for a faction attempting to DDoS a particular site. Along the way you could get side quests to take down small sites for monetary gain.

Play as an Ars Writer, in which you attempt to gain the position of Supreme Ruler of Ars HQ by publishing high-quality and interesting articles to gain page views, comments and a good Google search ranking.

Play as a Moderator, where you have to weave your way through the battle field that is the Comments section, fighting internet trolls, spammers, flame wars and keeping the balance between interesting comments and all out shouting matches.

Play as a Commenter, where you have one mission: battle your way through the Ars militia to the rank of Ars Legatus Legionis, or as a bonus get the mythical Ars Senator rank.

I respectfully suggest that the game type would likely be dictated by the theme. So this article appears to be the cart before the horse.

With that in mind I propose a theme that will help work out what the game type would be.

Players each take the role of a technology firm. Their aim is to bring a new product to market. They must also prevent their competitors doing the same by way of comically obvious patents (just like real life), which they apply for via a lackadaisical, inept and haphazard approval process which is deliberately random (just like real life). Once a player acquires enough patents they can disrupt their competitors products with sanctions, collecting revenue by way of legal fees and blocking them from the market (just like real life).

I think munchkin-like with classes of writer, editor, troll, good poster, and publisher might be hilarious if done in the right tounge-in-cheek approach. You could reference a lot of funny stuff, and it leaves a lot of room for players adding stuff. Hell, if it takes off, it could become a real munchkin expansion.

I just really want to see something that includes concepts like The White Knight, Lee's Water Resistant Driveway, The Orbital HQ, and a Banhammer. Also, you could throw in an oblique reference to DOD.

I think that you might want to be a bit more specific than "Euro" game. For example, there's territory control, worker placement, and a whole other set of sub genres that make things different. Playing Lords of Waterdeep (worker placement) is very very different from playing Settlers of Catan which is much more about area control. (There are a number of reasons though that I really like Lords of Waterdeep but really don't like Settlers of Catan).

As mentioned in the thread I think a big part of the game should be what kind of interaction you want to have between players. Silly bartering? Cutthroat thievery? Mischievous negotiation? Self-directed awe at you building up a grand empire? I think going theme first and then selecting the style is also the way to go.

I vote use "The Battlefront" as your setting. The objective of the game is to "win arguments" about the fact that your OS is better, while demonstrating that other people's choices are "wrong".

The board would be a connected series of concepts, ranging from file systems to hardware technologies. You win if you can correctly seize all of the areas.

Cards would be things like "reference points", "security patch", "popularity", etc. At the beginning of the game, you would take turns setting the "winning condition" for each argument position. "This one wins with 5 popularity points", "This one wins with 3 security patches", etc.

Just create a game where people sit around all day disagreeing with opinions of others, argue about it, then down vote who ever it is they don't like for disagreeing with them. There ya go, the ARS themed game.

Just create a game where people sit around all day disagreeing with opinions of others, argue about it, then down vote who ever it is they don't like for disagreeing with them. There ya go, the ARS Game.

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

But Monopoly has issues beyond crooked bankers. It’s a dice-driven slog in which players have little strategy at their disposal other than buy-or-don’t-buy, and the only meaningful interaction players have with each other is demanding rent payments.

It's sounds like the author never played Monopoly knowing that collecting rent is optional (the rules state specifically rent is only paid if asked for within a specific interval), which makes the possible player interactions and agreements far more complex than it would be otherwise - limited by one's imagination really.

I definitely like the second idea the best. Collaborative games (especially ones that involve a player 'turning'), are a ton of fun and are flexible enough to mold into whatever "theme" you eventually decide on. One idea is to create a game where the board represents this site which has been taken over by the government and used to disseminate propaganda. The players would have to "clean" the site (similar to pandemic) while figuring out who is responsible for spreading the propaganda (the 'turned' player). Just an idea.

Regarding the three archetype choices, my suggestion is best summed up with a question. Which archetype mechanic best matches the "Ars personality"?

The first archetype perhaps matches the notion that Ars encourages familiarity with technology.The third archetype well matches the notion that Ars' staff and readers each brings their own skills and quirks to the site.I'm not sure how the second archetype fits, but I suspect someone else herein can come up with something...

Just create a game where people sit around all day disagreeing with opinions of others, argue about it, then down vote who ever it is they don't like for disagreeing with them. There ya go, the ARS Game.

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

you could turn this into a game about Net Neutrality and patent/copyright trolls!

While I have never played Catan or any of its related ilk, I do own Pandemic and its two expansions as well as the iPad digital version and then four Munchkin card games with their multiple expansions as well as the Munchkin board game and its expansion. Of these two games, I would agree with several of the above commenters that a Munchkin-type game would probably fit the Ars theme the best, would be easiest to pick up and play, and would definitely be the easiest to implement from a design and balance perspective. The range of Munchkin settings available (take a look at the Steve Jackson games website for examples) demonstrates how flexible this game type is. Plus, Munchkin is hilarious, and I can only imagine an Ars-based Munchkin would be equally awesome, especially if you guys were able to come up with the requisite ridiculous monsters and items.

I am sure the game will start off great, but half way through the game the objective will change. You will need to sell out to a major game corporation and fill the gameboard with advertisements to other games sold by the same corporation.

But Monopoly has issues beyond crooked bankers. It’s a dice-driven slog in which players have little strategy at their disposal other than buy-or-don’t-buy, and the only meaningful interaction players have with each other is demanding rent payments.

It's sounds like the author never played Monopoly knowing that collecting rent is optional (the rules state specifically rent is only paid if asked for within a specific interval), which makes the possible player interactions and agreements far more complex than it would be otherwise - limited by one's imagination really.

[Edit: semantic correction]

Or the "if you don't buy it - it goes to auction" which makes things quicker and much more interesting when that rule is in place, in my experience.

If doing an adventure game, include some mechanism to play as a character version of a forum user (e.g. character creation stats based on their perceived characteristics). Make sure to have a role for decloaking lurkers.

I'm fairly certain that the munchkin style option is going to be the most reasonable in terms of developing game play.

The Pandemic type game ( and euro games like Agricola) will be the hardest to make because balancing is such a major issue. Small changes to any one rule could have a potentially large effect on the rest of the game.

The other issue with the type 1 and 2 styles is that there is still an issue of what the core mechanic would be. And whether or not the game is actually enjoyable is going to be largely based on what the core mechanic is.

The Munchkin style game is straight forward. It's easy to theme. The basics of core gameplay are already well established (each card does something). Balancing is not much of an issue, because the game is supposed to have cards that are unbalanced. The random element is there in the card draw. Plus, Munchkin is lots of fun (though I'm sure there's someone out there that hates munchkin...somewhere).

Another potential style that may bridge the gap between the complexity of types 1 and 2, but give you more munchkin level development is something like Bang!

It will be harder to balance than munchkin, but not so difficult as as the other two types (imho). It can have a traitor element. And there are few enough cards that small changes, while significant, will probably not fundamentally change the game (obviously there are exceptions).

I respectfully suggest that the game type would likely be dictated by the theme. So this article appears to be the cart before the horse.

With that in mind I propose a theme that will help work out what the game type would be.

This.

It is hard to envisage any of the game types working without the theme, and it will be harder to come up with a theme once you are forced to constrain it within a particular game type.

Actually, many modern board games are only loosely clothed by particular themes, which merely serve as mnemonics for aiding the memory of otherwise abstract rules or concepts. The underlying mechanics could easily be reworked to fit a wide range of conflicts or settings. This often happens between the original design and a game's eventual publication, or in a later re-release of a game.